[UncleMeat]

Nope.

This is the trick that courts use in qualified immunity cases. You can't just say "well obviously this is a violation of 4th amendment rights by any person's plain reading." You need a prior case where a judge found this specifically. And that prior case needs to match the facts of the current case basically exactly. Any minor difference can be leveraged to argue that this case is a new set of facts and that there is no prior case that would inform a cop that what they are doing is in fact a violation of rights and so they are immune from civil action.

The outcome of each one of these cases is that the cop gets off scot free and the court says "the next time this specific thing happens under our jurisdiction you can sue" but that specific thing never happens again for the rest of time because the boundaries of that specific thing are so tight.

[tavavex]

That's insane. I was vaguely aware that the American system that has grown over the 250-year old foundation was getting rusty, but I never knew it has taken such a dark turn.

How far can you take the "precise case" thing then? Does it just apply to the specific action that was done? How far can they legally stretch what's considered to be "novel"?